-
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021The aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that patients with one or more amalgam restorations have an increased risk for systemic diseases rather than patients... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that patients with one or more amalgam restorations have an increased risk for systemic diseases rather than patients with resin-based restorations.
DATA
The data search produced an initial 3568 total number of records. All titles and abstract were reviewed by five independent examiners, and only 36 records were selected for full text in depth examination. Out of these, only nine publications matched the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review.
SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge) were searched up to June 2019. In addition, a manual search was carried out on journals related to this topic.
STUDY SELECTION
All selected human clinical studies compared patients with dental amalgam restorations to patients with non-amalgam restorations on restorative material related diseases/health conditions with at least 50 patients and a reasonable follow up. The systemic effects of dental restorations were analyzed. As for any systemic effects, there was no difference between amalgam and composite restoration.
CONCLUSIONS
With the limitations of the few available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the matter, amalgam restorations, similarly to other modern resin-based materials, were not related to an increased risk of systemic diseases or conditions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
On the basis of the available RCTs, amalgam restorations, if compared with resin-based fillings, do not show an increased risk for systemic diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to exclude or demonstrate any direct influence on general health. The removal of old amalgam restorations and their substitution with more modern adhesive restorations should be performed only when clinically necessary and not just for material concerns. In order to better evaluate the safety of dental amalgam compared to other more modern restorative materials, further RCTs that consider important parameters such as long and uniform follow up periods, number of restorations per patient, and sample populations representative of chronic or degenerative diseases are needed.
PubMed: 33920968
DOI: 10.3390/ma14081980 -
Frontiers in Bioengineering and... 2021Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of...
Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using keyword combinations such as microbes and oral and corrosion; microbes and dental and corrosion; microorganisms and oral and corrosion; microorganisms and dental and corrosion. Out of 141 articles, only 25 satisfied the selection criteria. s, sulfate-reducing bacteria, sulfate oxidizing bacteria, Veilonella, Actinomyces, were found to have a potential association with corrosion of intraoral metallic alloys such as stainless steel, titanium, nickel, cobalt-chromium, neodymium-iron-boron magnets, zirconia, amalgam, copper aluminum, and precious metal alloys. The included studies inferred an association between oral microorganisms and intra-oral metallic alloys-based dental appliances, although, it is vital to acknowledge that most studies in the review employed an simulation of the intra-oral condition.
PubMed: 33791285
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.631103 -
Journal of Environmental Health Science... Dec 2020Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail,... (Review)
Review
Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail, and hair of Iranian dentists (IDs) through the meta-analysis technique. Comprehensive and systematic searches were performed in main local databases including SID, Magiran, Iran medex, and ISC as well as internationally available databases including Embase, PubMed and Scopus for all the relevant studies up to 2018. In order to prevent bias in this study and identify eligible studies, various steps of the study was performed independently by two researchers. Out of 13 studies in the meta-analysis process which included 1499 IDs, the mean of the mercury level in the urine, nail, and blood was estimated to be 6.29 (95% CI: 2.61-9.97, I-square: 62.7%, P: 0.006), 3.54 (95% CI: 2.81-4.28, I-square: 0.0%, P: 0.968), 11.20 (95% CI: 2.28-20.13, I-square: 59.9%, P: 0.082), respectively. The mean mercury level (MML) in the biological samples of IDs was higher than the standard of World Health Organization (WHO). So, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Union Regulations (EUR), in the context of the Minamata Convention (MC) on Dental Amalgam (DA), in order to avoid the dangers of mercury exposure in dentists, it is necessary for Iran and other countries to approve laws and to implement a national plan to reduce mercury levels and replace the appropriate materials.
PubMed: 33312669
DOI: 10.1007/s40201-020-00558-w -
Journal of International Society of... 2020The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, attitude, and practices among dental teaching institutions and private practitioners in Asian countries. (Review)
Review
A Systematic Review to Evaluate Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Regarding Biomedical Waste Management among Dental Teaching Institutions and Private Practitioners in Asian Countries.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, attitude, and practices among dental teaching institutions and private practitioners in Asian countries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic review of observational studies on BMW management was conducted. We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Manual search was carried out for similar topics in the National Medical Library, New Delhi. In addition, the bibliographies were manually searched. There was no disagreement between the two reviewers. This review was reported and conducted in step with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only studies written in English and published until November 2019 were included. This review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number is CRD42019124900).
RESULTS
In this review, of 678 articles, 24 articles met inclusion criteria. Available scientific studies showed that knowledge regarding BMW management guidelines varied from 33% to 100% among dentists. Most of the studies reported that knowledge and practice regarding segregation of BMW was limited. Most of the study subjects were aware of hazardous effects of amalgam and had amalgam separator. Studies done in Chennai and Karnataka, approximately one-third dentists were not following BMW guidelines for sharp management and most of them were disposing of sharps in general waste bins.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the current evidence and data extracted from the various databases, it can be concluded that knowledge regarding BMW management guidelines among dentists is inadequate and practice regarding the same is poor. Regular training sessions and Continuing Dental Education (CDE) on BMW management guidelines and updates need to be organized for improvement of knowledge and practice regarding BMW among dentists.
PubMed: 33282760
DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_157_20 -
International Journal of Dentistry 2020A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (Ovid via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) including all available randomised... (Review)
Review
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (Ovid via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) including all available randomised controlled trials published in the last 15 years comparing the use of dental amalgam with composite resins in humans with a follow-up period of at least one year. The primary outcome was the Hg concentration in biological fluids (urine, hair, blood, and saliva) with the aim of assessing their reliability as biomarkers of Hg exposure. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the overall quality of evidence through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. The results of the meta-analysis were expressed using a random-effects model, and their power was assessed through the trial sequential analysis (TSA).
RESULTS
From the initial 2555 results, only 6 publications were included in the review: five were considered as having high risk of bias, whereas one as having moderate risk. Only two articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis gathered data from 859 patients but was nevertheless not significant ( = 0.12). The TSA confirmed this evidence revealing that it was due to a lack of statistical power since the required information size (RIS) threshold is not reached.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing evidence revealed that there are not enough data to support the hypothesis that restorations with dental amalgam can cause nephrotoxicity when compared with composite resins restorations.
PubMed: 32849873
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8857238 -
Cadernos de Saude Publica Feb 2019Mercury is a metal found in the environment from natural and anthropogenic sources. It is highly toxic to ecosystems and living beings. Most human exposures come from...
Mercury is a metal found in the environment from natural and anthropogenic sources. It is highly toxic to ecosystems and living beings. Most human exposures come from ingestion of contaminated seafood, outgassing from dental amalgam or occupational exposure (e.g. gold mining), among other cases. Large populations are exposed to mercury, making it a very important issue from the public health perspective. Adverse health effects are commonly seen in the nervous system, but every organ is a potential target, such as the bone marrow. The main goal of this study was to assess the available evidence on human exposure to mercury and its hematological effects. A search strategy was constructed, including key terms (MeSH, text word and equivalents) for querying 2 repositories of master dissertation and PhD thesis (Fiocruz/ARCA and University of São Paulo) and 4 different electronic databases: BVS/LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and TOXLINE/NIH, for articles published from 1950 to February 2018. There was no language restriction and a tool (EPHPP) was used to assess the quality of included studies. According to pre-established criteria, 80 studies were retrieved, all of them observational (48 case reports, 24 cross-sectional, 6 case series and 2 cohorts), comprising 9,284 people. Despite the fact that most exposed ones (6,012) had normal blood cell count and mercury hematological effects did not seem very usual (1,914 cases: 14 severe and 29 deaths), three studies reported association (β) for anemia, lymphopenia, neutrophilia and basophilia. We concluded that the gathered information pointed to mercury hematotoxic effects, some of them may be serious and even fatal.
Topics: Brazil; Cell Count; Environmental Exposure; Environmental Monitoring; Hematologic Diseases; Hematologic Tests; Humans; Mercury; Mercury Compounds; Mercury Poisoning; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 30758455
DOI: 10.1590/0102-311X00091618 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2018Composite resin, serves as esthetic alternative to amalgam and cast restorations. Posterior teeth can be restored using direct or indirect composite restorations. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Composite resin, serves as esthetic alternative to amalgam and cast restorations. Posterior teeth can be restored using direct or indirect composite restorations. The selection between direct and indirect technique is a clinically challenging decision-making process. Most important influencing factor is the amount of remaining tooth substance.
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The databases searched included PubMed CENTRAL (until July 2015), Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The bibliographies of clinical studies and reviews identified in the electronic search were analyzed to identify studies which were published outside the electronically searched journals. The primary outcome measure was evaluation of the survival of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
RESULTS
This review included thirteen studies in which clinical performance of various types of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth were compared. Out of the thirteen studies which were included seven studies had a high risk of bias and five studies had a moderate risk of bias. One study having a low risk of bias, concluded that there was no significant difference between direct and indirect technique. However, the available evidence revealed inconclusive results.
CONCLUSION
Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials with long term follow-up to give concrete evidence on the clinical performce of direct and indirect composite restorations.
PubMed: 29628639
DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_213_16 -
Brazilian Oral Research Mar 2018This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29513886
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. For teeth that cannot be treated with orthograde root canal therapy, or for which it has failed, retrograde root filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials, such as amalgam, zinc oxide eugenol and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), are generally used. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 13 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 13 September 2016); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (in Chinese, 1978 to 20 September 2016); VIP (in Chinese, 1989 to 20 September 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (in Chinese, 1994 to 20 September 2016); and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese, to 20 September 2016). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only that compared different retrograde filling materials, with reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently carried out risk of bias assessments for each eligible study following Cochrane methodological guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (916 participants with 988 teeth) reported in English. All the studies had high risk of bias. The six studies examined five different comparisons, including MTA versus intermediate restorative material (IRM), MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid cement (Super-EBA), Super-EBA versus IRM, dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement and glass ionomer cement versus amalgam. There was therefore little pooling of data and very little evidence for each comparison.There is weak evidence of little or no difference between MTA and IRM at the first year of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97 to 1.22; 222 teeth; quality of evidence: low). Insufficient evidence of a difference between MTA and IRM on success rate at the second year of follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.25; 86 teeth, 86 participants; quality of evidence: very low). All the other outcomes were based on a single study. There is insufficient evidence of any difference between MTA and Super-EBA at the one-year follow-up (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.10; 192 teeth, 192 participants; quality of evidence: very low), and only weak evidence indicating there might be a small increase in success rate at the one-year follow-up in favour of IRM compared to Super-EBA (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01; 194 teeth; quality of evidence: very low). There was also insufficient and weak evidence to show that dentine-bonded resin composite might be a better choice for increasing retrograde filling success rate compared to glass ionomer cement at the one-year follow-up (RR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.59; 122 teeth, 122 participants; quality of evidence: very low). And there was insufficient evidence of a difference between glass ionomer cement and amalgam at both the one-year (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.12; 105 teeth; quality of evidence: very low) and five-year follow-ups (RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.20; 82 teeth; quality of evidence: very low).None of these studies reported an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Amalgam; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Hydroxybenzoate Ethers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resin Cements; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 27991646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005517.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves removal of root canal filling materials from the tooth, followed by cleaning, shaping and obturating of the canals. Root-end resection is a surgical procedure that involves exposure of the periapical lesion through an osteotomy, surgical removal of the lesion, removal of part of the root-end tip, disinfection and, commonly, retrograde sealing or filling of the apical portion of the remaining root canal. This review updates one published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of surgical and non-surgical therapy for retreatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.To assess effects of surgical root-end resection under various conditions, for example, when different materials, devices or techniques are used.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 10 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 February 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 February 2016). We searched the US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 10 February 2016). We placed no restrictions regarding language and publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis. Studies could compare surgery versus non-surgical treatment or could compare different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer; postoperative pain and discomfort; and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus periapical radiography for preoperative assessment (one study at high risk of bias); antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo (one study at unclear risk); different magnification devices (loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) (two studies at high risk); types of incision (papilla base incision, sulcular incision) (one study at high risk and one at unclear risk); ultrasonic devices versus handpiece burs (one study at high risk); types of root-end filling material (glass ionomer cement, amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), gutta-percha (GP), super-ethoxy benzoic acid (EBA)) (five studies at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk and one at low risk); grafting versus no grafting (three studies at high risk and one at unclear risk); and low energy level laser therapy versus placebo (irradiation without laser activation) versus control (no use of the laser device) (one study at high risk).There was no clear evidence of superiority of the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or 10-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence).There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence).There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day 1 post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, and to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, precisely defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.
Topics: Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 27759881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005511.pub3